price cap and windfall tax

[macafee2]

price cap, I thought a price cap was the maximum energy companies can charge for gas and electric.

windfall tax, government proposes windfall tax on energy companies profits.

my conclusion, price cap to high, government are trying to look good by taking money from energy companies while still allowing energy companies to keep a massive profit, to give back to us instead of lowering price cap and energy bills and reducing amount of profit energy companies can make.

Is my conclusion wrong?


As energy is a problem why don't the government mandate all new builds should have solar panels?


macafee2

[another_clean_sheet]

Originally Posted by macafee2

price cap, I thought a price cap was the maximum energy companies can charge for gas and electric.

windfall tax, government proposes windfall tax on energy companies profits.

my conclusion, price cap to high, government are trying to look good by taking money from energy companies while still allowing energy companies to keep a massive profit, to give back to us instead of lowering price cap and energy bills and reducing amount of profit energy companies can make.

Is my conclusion wrong?


As energy is a problem why don't the government mandate all new builds should have solar panels?


macafee2

The cap is maximum price and is based on the usage of an average user. So one can pay more or lies depending on you usage. If you look back in history you will find the cap has gone down as well as up.
In terms of figures the profit looks large. However as a percentage of turnover it is quite small. If you were investing your own money would you be happy with that return on your capital?

[torque2me]

Originally Posted by macafee2

price cap, I thought a price cap was the maximum energy companies can charge for gas and electric.

windfall tax, government proposes windfall tax on energy companies profits.

my conclusion, price cap to high, government are trying to look good by taking money from energy companies while still allowing energy companies to keep a massive profit, to give back to us instead of lowering price cap and energy bills and reducing amount of profit energy companies can make.

Is my conclusion wrong?


As energy is a problem why don't the government mandate all new builds should have solar panels?


macafee2

Retrospective taxation is a no no for any decent society and government. Gordon Brown tried a retrospective tax for CO2 vehicles. Remember the billions Shell and BP will lose when they decouple from their Russian partners. I bet Sunuk glosses over that one when they could easily report losses. Remember Horizon?

Would you invest in something under terms and conditions that you accept and them t&c's change and instead of paying 20% tax on your profit it is upgraded to 40%. You would not be chuffed. BP and Shell are free to take their investment money elsewhere with the loss of that taxation.

Kev

[macafee2]

Originally Posted by another_clean_sheet

The cap is maximum price and is based on the usage of an average user. So one can pay more or lies depending on you usage. If you look back in history you will find the cap has gone down as well as up.
In terms of figures the profit looks large. However as a percentage of turnover it is quite small. If you were investing your own money would you be happy with that return on your capital?

I do not know understand what you are saying

macafee2

[macafee2]

Originally Posted by torque2me

Retrospective taxation is a no no for any decent society and government. Gordon Brown tried a retrospective tax for CO2 vehicles. Remember the billions Shell and BP will lose when they decouple from their Russian partners. I bet Sunuk glosses over that one when they could easily report losses. Remember Horizon?

Would you invest in something under terms and conditions that you accept and them t&c's change and instead of paying 20% tax on your profit it is upgraded to 40%. You would not be chuffed. BP and Shell are free to take their investment money elsewhere with the loss of that taxation.

Kev

I do not know understand what you are saying.
macafee2

[another_clean_sheet]

Originally Posted by macafee2

I do not know understand what you are saying

macafee2

Which bit?

[macafee2]

Originally Posted by another_clean_sheet

Which bit?

The top half.
"The cap is maximum price and is based on the usage of an average user. So one can pay more or lies depending on you usage. If you look back in history you will find the cap has gone down as well as up."

Bottom half, mmmm, not relevant in my mind.


macafee2

[another_clean_sheet]

Originally Posted by macafee2

The top half.
"The cap is maximum price and is based on the usage of an average user. So one can pay more or lies depending on you usage. If you look back in history you will find the cap has gone down as well as up."

Bottom half, mmmm, not relevant in my mind.


macafee2

The cap is based on the average user using x kWh of electricity and y therms of gas.
The cap has gone up as well as down is a fact.
The bottom half is relevant because you talked about billions £ of profit without any relevance to their turnover. Putting as a percentage makes it easier to understand if you are used to looking at the return (interest) on your savings

[macafee2]

Originally Posted by another_clean_sheet

The cap is based on the average user using x kWh of electricity and y therms of gas.
The cap has gone up as well as down is a fact.
The bottom half is relevant because you talked about billions £ of profit without any relevance to their turnover. Putting as a percentage makes it easier to understand if you are used to looking at the return (interest) on your savings

The cap is based on the average user using x kWh of electricity and y therms of gas.

That is not my understanding.

The cap has gone up as well as down is a fact.
Dont see the relevance

The bottom half is relevant because you talked about billions £ of profit without any relevance to their turnover. Putting as a percentage makes it easier to understand if you are used to looking at the return (interest) on your savings

I never mentioned billions in the op.

Going back to my OP
1. is the first line wrong? A search on Google suggests not.
2. windfall tax proposal, is this not proposed?
3. Is the price cap too high if companies can make such huge profits the government feels able to take impose a windfall tax on them?
4. Is the government windfall tax going to be given to joe public?
5. instead of windfall tax, why not lower price cap?
6.Does it reflect well on a government if they impose a windfall tax on companies that make large profits and then the government gives that money to the public?
7. Is the large profit due to the price cap being so high and therefore the problem is created by "government" yet by taking money from the companies and giving to public "no one notices."
8. Has the price per unit of gas and electric gone up by the same amount as it costs to buy/generate? If more then the price cap surly is not just covering the cost to the energy companies but also allows them to make extra profit, in these hard times I question that practice.


macafee2

[another_clean_sheet]

Originally Posted by macafee2

The cap is based on the average user using x kWh of electricity and y therms of gas.

That is not my understanding.



macafee2

So what is your understanding then. How do you think it is calculated.